 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jez
Date: 2002-05-24 12:39
I had a go on a few Morgan mp.s the other day and was very impressed. I didn,t buy one because I couldn't quite find the width of lay I like but I'll certainly keep on looking if I get the chance.
There was a little note in with each of them, talking about the rather unusual shape. They look a bit like a Sax mp. so the whole bit that goes in your mouth is a bit thinner than normal. It explained that this is so you can put a little more into your mouth, which seems a strange concept. Now assuming we're not all going to change our embouchure, radically, to use them, the effect would, surely, be that we'd keep the mouth in the same place but it would end up being a little more closed than usual.
Surely this is a bad idea? We need to keep the mouth's internal cavity as open as possible to maximise resonance. Is this design-feature just a gimmick to make this mp. recognisable at a glance?
Or is this a sign of a trend to reduce the resonating property of an open cavity in favour of a more closed down space to improve projection?
Could this be a symptom of the difference in the 'English' and the 'American' style of sound?
jez
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2002-05-24 13:39
I have not seen any of these, but I believe that the concept would be the same as the Vandoren Profile 88 series, and of other duck bill mouthpieces. The idea is that you don't change your embouchure, but that by keeping your embouchure at the same opening, you will have a greater amount of mouthpiece in your mouth. Really, the idea is not so much to have more mouthpiece, but more reed. The idea is so you will play farther down on the reed and at a thicker point without having to feel as if your mouth is wide open.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2002-05-24 15:41
Interesting distinction between whether to pivot the reed against lips further back or whether the embouchure is more closed, but the pivot point essentially similar. Here are some thoughts:
For the majority of players who tongue tip of tongue to tip of reed, taking more mouthpiece in respresents a very fundamental change, which may well not be for the better. Less problem for me as I tongue blade of tongue to tip of reed.
For certain people the seal of lips round the mouthpiece would be improved if the "bite" were closer.
Oral cavity less open, perhaps, and perhaps leading to a more focussed sound, but that could vary from player to player. If more mouthpiece inserted then that perhaps would change the acoustic qualities of the oral cavity in any case.
If the idea is to "bite" further down, does that go hand in hand with the tendencey towards longer lays, suggesting that the pivot point has to be further back to avoid excessive closing down. That could lead to the use of harder reeds to fit with longer lays.
If the design is taken far enough it should impact on internal baffle design leading to a closer to flat angle baffle. If so I guess that would have the biggest effect of all (brighter sound perhaps?)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2002-05-24 17:42
jez -
I played a Morgan mouthpiece for a couple of years. It blew easily, and the tone sounded good to me. However, I listened to a recording of the quintet I was in and found that I sounded dull and monochromatic. My wife said the same thing, so I switched to an Opperman, which sounds rather bright to me, but has much more color and energy to the audience.
I find that I get more color in my sound when my jaw is a little more open. This gives me more room to vary my toungue and palate shape, and the extra space seems to create extra resonance.
In addition to the duckbill shape, Morgan's mouthpieces have rounded chamber walls. I think this also contributes to the characteristic sound of his mouthpieces.
I agree with you that there are problems (at least for the way I play) with the Morgan design. Before buying a Morgan, I'd advise testing it in a recital hall, with someone whose ears you trust listening in the back.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Dow
Date: 2002-05-27 10:56
At a master class years ago David Weber advised all of his students to taking more of the mouthpiece into their mouths. the main reason for this is to have more control over the pitch which he stated can lower much of the already sharp notes throughout the clarinet range. With my own private students, as of late, have noticed many still get a small tone with less mouthpieces and the ones who take very little mouthpiece tend to have biting problems, this aspect of playing the clarinet is one that is given too little consideration of and may be just the advice to steer some players on the right course in tonal devolpement and control of the tuning of the clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: George Lin
Date: 2002-05-29 04:21
Howard Klug (Indiana Unversity) also recommends taking in more mouthpiece in a master class that I attended several years ago.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
